Dual-position calibration markers for total hip arthroplasty: theoretical comparison to fixed calibration and single marker method.
Arthroplasty
Calibration
Diagnostic imaging
Planning techniques
Total hip replacement
Journal
International orthopaedics
ISSN: 1432-5195
Titre abrégé: Int Orthop
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7705431
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
23
02
2018
accepted:
12
06
2018
pubmed:
21
6
2018
medline:
17
6
2020
entrez:
21
6
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Digital templating is considered a standard for total hip arthroplasty. Different means for the necessary calibration of radiographs are known. While single marker calibration with radiopaque spheres is the most common, it is associated with possible significant deviations from the true magnification of the hip. Notably, fixed magnification factors showed better results. Therefore, a dual-position calibration marker method was simulated and compared to the established methods. First, an empirical fixed magnification factor was identified and applied to a series of radiographs. Second, three magnification factors were generated based on sagittal patient data of 398 CT scans. These methods were compared to the fixed factor. The fixed factor was 122.6%. In the clinical application, the error of the fixed factor was 2.5% while the error of the single marker was 5.2%. In the CT cohort, the mean reference factor was 120.5% in females and 120.3% in males. The reference factor was compared to sex-specific means, sex-specific linear functions, and sex-specific cubic functions. The best results were found for the linear regression model with a mean difference of 0.8% from the reference value. No proportional bias was found (p = 0.623). The simulation of the dual-position marker method using the linear regression model showed promising results, superior to all other methods. In future studies, its clinical application should be tested.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29922839
doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4034-4
pii: 10.1007/s00264-018-4034-4
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
589-595Références
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Apr;31(4):883-7
pubmed: 26614749
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Aug;29(8):1658-60
pubmed: 24736293
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Aug;31(8):1842-8
pubmed: 26968692
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 13;10(7):e0128529
pubmed: 26168410
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 2006 Sep-Oct;144(5):492-6
pubmed: 16991065
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Jan;92(1):136-41
pubmed: 20044692
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Apr;24(3):407-13
pubmed: 18534424
Skeletal Radiol. 2016 Apr;45(4):455-63
pubmed: 26695396
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Dec;90(12):1623-6
pubmed: 19043135
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Sep;91(9):1217-22
pubmed: 19721050
Hip Int. 2012 Jan-Feb;22(1):82-9
pubmed: 22344481
Skeletal Radiol. 2013 Sep;42(9):1287-94
pubmed: 23828621